Compromise Is Bad!

[MineralMan]

Or is it?

I have some very strong views about how politics should operate. They do not operate that way. I have some very strong views about religion. They are unpopular views, and religion continues. I have many very strong views. Most of them are not the way things are. I compromise. I compromise on most things. Here are some of them:

1. I compromise on how much I am paid for my work. I think I should be paid more, because my work is very good and I have been paid more in the past. Currently, however, the marketplace will not pay as much as it used to for my work. I compromise, and do the same quality of work for what the marketplace will pay. I negotiate my payment with those for whom I work. They give, and I give, and we settle on a compromise. I can do that or not work. The compromise means I have money to pay the bills.

2. I like to watch fishing programs on television. My wife detests those shows. However, we both like watching news programs and commentary. I don't like that as much as I like fishing programs, but I compromise. When we're watching television, we watch news and commentary most of the time. If I am alone, I watch fishing shows. It is a compromise I willingly make.

3. I have certain preferences when I go fishing. I like to fish on particular waters for the particular fish I enjoy catching. I also enjoy fishing with one or two other people, who prefer other waters and other types of fish. When we fish together, we discuss where we will fish and what we will fish for. We compromise. We decide on a body of water and how we will fish. Since I like fishing for any type of fish and on any type of water, I will gladly compromise, because I also enjoy fishing with that person. I might prefer another body of water, or another target fish, but we arrive at a compromise and go fishing.

4. I compromise politically. I am a socialist in my preferences politically. I believe socialism is the most equitable form of government, and think it would be a very good choice for the US. Socialism, however, is not popular in the US, where I live. Socialistic candidates almost never manage to win an election. I detest the politics of the Republican Party. I dislike some of the things some Democrats are willing to support. For example, although I like much of what FDR did, I despise his decision to intern Japanese-American citizens during WWII. I liked Bill Clinton in many ways, but dislike NAFTA very much. I vote always for the most progressive candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning in every election, even if I disagree on some of that candidate's position. Almost universally, that person is a Democrat. Usually, in my area, that Democrat wins. If I chose to vote for a minority party candidate who was closer to my views overall, but who could not possibly win the election, I risk having a Republican win the election. So, I compromise. The result is a legislator or executive who is closer to my views that the other candidate who had a chance to win. So far I have not found a single candidate for any office who agreed with me on everything. So, every election ends up with me compromising to vote for a candidate who can win who agrees with me more than the other candidate.


We all compromise. We all compromise on issues large and small. There is no alternative. For each individual, it is highly unlikely that there is another individual on this planet who shares the same opinion or belief on everything. I've certainly never found another person who shared all my beliefs. So, I compromise, in order to live in society. I've never found a way to avoid it. Politics is just one of the areas where compromise is always required. So, I compromise.

[Enrique]

1. sometimes we don't compromise

like when Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, the dems did not compromise. They filibustered.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes, they did, and they also moved the age of full retirement up.

Maybe you didn't notice that one. I did. I did not say we had to compromise on everything. We don't. But, we can't filibuster everything, either.

[guruoo]

18. I would consider that their failure to consider compromise, not ours. nt

[Enrique]

21. the dems didn't offer a counter to Bush's plan

they controlled both houses of Congress. They could have passed their own Social Security reform plan, and then negotiated a compromise with Bush.

But they didn't do that. They simply did killed Bush's plan without negotiations.

[walldude]

2. Yeah but the whole idea is to ask for much more

than you want so that when you compromise you get what you need.

Something the Democrats have yet to learn.

[MineralMan]

4. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Knowing the difference in advance is sometimes difficult. Sometimes it's not, though.

[treestar]

6. Why is this idea so bandied about here?

It is so oversimplified. As if negotiating is easy and mathematical.

So I went to a job interview and was offered 40,000 per year. I asked for one million. The guy laughed. He went up to 41500, which he would have done anyway, had I asked for 50K or 45K. Do you really think in that situation the company would offer you 500K?

[MineralMan]

7. Good example.

I've managed to kick up my charges for my work, based on the success it's having with clients. I demonstrated that success, and now I charge more. Sometimes, that's how it works.

[walldude]

10. Yeah good example if you are not

looking to compromise. Good example if you are completely and utterly clueless about how to negotiate.

[MineralMan]

12. It was an obvious exaggeration.

I recognized that. I'm surprised you didn't.

[walldude]

9. Right use a ridiculous example of a moron overreaching

to put down my comment.

Your example is asinine. If it's 50k you want and you ask for a million you are a fucking moron. If you want 50K you ask for 75K and work your way down.

And the idea is so bandied about here because that's how compromise has worked for the last few thousand years. Just because you can't figure out how to do it does not mean the rest of us have to live within your boundaries.

[treestar]

11. Well duh

so you agree with me.

then why apply the simpleton approach to the President approaching Congress?

[EFerrari]

14. Why? Because we learn, over and over

that the opening move has been to give away the store.

So, you went to that job interview and before you even got an offer, you said you'd work for free.

The guy still laughed.

[EFerrari]

13. Exactly. Compromise is a sub-routine of

negotiation.

[treestar]

5. OMG you caved! You caved to your wife! !!!!!

You caved to your fishing buddies!!!

You are weak and spineless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm: obviously.

[MineralMan]

8. LOL!

I guess I'm just a spelunker at heart. :rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

15. The poor and working class people in this country have compromised enough.

The wealthy have got their way and now it is time they be forced to compromise. The system is not sustainable in a broadly beneficial way. Those with the most have to made to give or the best response is to crash it all down on all our ears, that is a compromise.

[leftstreet]

17. +1

[WillyT]

65. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:kick:

[woo me with science]

68. Thank you. "Compromise" here is as disingenuous as the Republicans' "shared sacrifice." nt

[JackRiddler]

75. Indeed. And what of the Iraqis, Afghanis and all the others who don't get a choice to "compromise"?

[MH1]

16. Recommended, as usual.

For what that's worth!

:)


(edited for WTF is up with my brain today that I can't spell 'recommended'?)

[MineralMan]

24. Thanks. It's worth a lot to me.

[EFerrari]

19. So, compromise is not bad because you do it?

Reductio ad absurdam is bad!

[MineralMan]

22. Reductio ad absurdum is pretty bad, too

Even if you don't speak Latin, it's easy to understand when you spell it correctly, eh?

On to your subject. No, compromise is not good because I do it. It is not bad, either. It just is. Do you ever compromise? Think hard.

[MineralMan]

32. I must apologize for my comment about your Latin.

It's possible you don't know Latin. I'll tell you where you erred.

Absurdus, or Absurda, is a nominative case adjective that can modify a masculine or feminine noun in Latin, respectively.

The accusative case forms are Absurdum and Absurdam, respectively. Ad requires the accusative case.

In the expression, Reductio ad absurdumm, absurdum modifies Reductio, a masculine noun. Therefore absurdum is required.

[boston bean]

78. If you felt bad enough to apologize why didn't you just delete your comment.

instead you once proved again to all how smart you really are.

whoop dee dooooo, that aint latin BTW.

[leftstreet]

20. You can't compromise in US politics when there is no Left

You're talking about compromise between two parties on the right of the spectrum

[MineralMan]

23. Depends where you draw the line, doesn't it,

between right and left. I draw it right down the middle of the bell curve of political belief. You appear to have moved it quite a bit to the left of that point.

Now you know where my line is. In my thread, I get to draw the line. Right down the middle of the curve.



The only way you're going to get the politics you want is to prevent the right half of that curve from voting. What's your plan to do that? As long as the right half votes, we are equally divided, and the extreme ends of the curve do not get what they want. That curve is why politics is all about compromise. We learn at at each election. Did you want to stop having elections? What's your plan?

Have a nice day.

[leftstreet]

30. You're mistakenly assuming the Democrats represent the Left

The Democratic party doesn't

Your picture graph represents the media and two party inspired dialog, nothing more. Not to say that it isn't correct, it just doesn't represent anything outside of it's self defined parameters.

[MineralMan]

39. I have displayed how I draw the line.

You may do the same, if you wish.

[leftstreet]

40. Yes. Between "crazy" people

Not sure I get your point, but I know there's one somewhere in there

:-)

[MineralMan]

43. Yeah, the Crazy part is a little silly.

The terms "left" and "right" in politics comes from the seating arrangement in the US Congress. Democrats are on the left, and Republicans are on the right. I'm sure you knew that, right?

I refer to the two sides using that traditional division. If you are using it in a different sense, you'll have to explain your definition.

In the US, the left and right are pretty equally divided, using that traditional definition. The bell curve is accurate. The far left and far right (both termed crazy in that graphic) represent almost equally small percentages of the political spectrum. It's very difficult to get things done from those positions.

[leftstreet]

48. You're using "the seating arrangement in the US Congress" now?!

to explain the "left" and "right" in US politics?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Okay! We agree!

ROFL

[MineralMan]

51. It's where the expressions originated.

It's the classical definition of left and right in politics, and that's where it began.

[leftstreet]

55. Well then why are Democrats blue and Republicans red?

:crazy:

[MineralMan]

56. That I cannot answer. That never made any sense to me, either.

The left and right thing, however, is based on something that actually exists. The blue and red? I think that came from CNN's depiction of the parties in one election during vote counting, but I can't remember which election it started in. It stuck, though. Not based on anything, though, other than some set designer's decision, I think.

Of course, red was the color associated with Soviet Communism, or what passed for Communism in that country. The confusion is clear, eh?

[JackRiddler]

73. It's a scam that started in 2000.

The parties were never color-coded before then.

Colors are eternal and immutable concepts. The idea of red states and blue states turns issues into matters of cultural or personal identity. Suddenly it's in your Texan DNA to vote for Republicans, even when they're screwing you.

Here's a DU post I wrote about it back in 2008:

originally posted at DU Sun Jan-20-08 03:32 PM


The designation of states since 2000 as "Red" for Republican and "Blue" for Democratic long ago became a subtle manipulation, and should be rejected as such.

A History in Color

Since the ascendancy of color television, blue and red have alternated as the colors assigned to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates on the election night maps used by the TV networks. This is not just because red and blue are primary colors and appear on the U.S. flag. They also happen to be universally distinguishable among viewers with different forms of color blindness.

Many readers may remember that Reagan states were shown in blue in 1980 and 1984. Bush was given red in 1988, but Clinton states were red in both 1992 and 1996.

An informal rule has governed color selection and has almost always been followed by every broadcast network since 1972: Color alternates for the incumbent party. Since incumbency varies, the same party can get the same color several times in a row.

For example, the incumbent color in 2000 was blue and thus given to the Democrats, while the opposition Republicans received red. The next election, the incumbent color switched to red. But since a Republican was now in office, states that voted for Bush remained in red.

If the rule is followed in 2008, however, then the Republican states will be shown in blue and the Democratic states in red.*

The above is explained and illustrated with old TV shots on a right-wing blog that features a table showing the colors used in different election years:

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/02/a_tale_of_red_a.html

A Psychology of Color

After the 2000 election, something changed. For the first time, the colors used arbitrarily on the election night maps entered the language (if informally) as the permanent colors of the parties.

This may have arisen simply because the election took more than a month to resolve (or steal, if you will), so that the coverage constantly featured maps with Gore in blue and Bush in red. But Blue and Red since then have remained widespread as terms describing a dichotomy.

Democrats and Republicans may often sound and act the same, but to call them Blue and Red suggests true and irreconcilable differences. The two colors, after all, can never be the same. The two-party system is both legitimated subtly as genuinely adversarial, and enshrined as a natural state.

Colors are beyond rationality. They are abstract, natural, and emotionally powerful.

To speak of Blues and Reds is to turn political ideologies and party coalitions into essential aspects of geography, culture and identity. A state no longer votes Republican, but simply is Red by nature. The country is graphically polarized, in fact divided into gangs, Bloods and Crips. Hooligans called the "Greens" and "Blues" once battled each other in the stands at the Hippodrome of Constantinople.

The Blue/Red terminology favors the discourse of the culture wars over mere debate on issues (or economic interests). Thus it encourages a manner of thinking about politics that I would argue is skewed to favor the concerns normally associated with the present-day "Reds."

Colors play to patriotic feeling, and thus reinforce those who are more prone to it. In my observation, the ideologues on the "Red" side have more frequently and more proudly adopted the distinction and termed themselves "Redstaters."

I do not think this coincidental, albeit ironic after the many decades Republicans spent sniffing around for Commie Red bastards.

The fact is that the populations of the states that voted for Bush (notwithstanding that several of these victories were probably stolen on his behalf) tend to be poorer and to have less formal education; they are considered more likely to have a chip on their shoulder and feel resentment against the states that swing Democratic. At any rate, this is what Rovian politics has understood and encouraged, creating the category of "NASCAR Dad" to counter "Soccer Mom." Again, Red/Blue subtly reinforces that.

November will bring a test: If the networks follow their own longstanding informal rule, they will designate blue as the Republican color and red as the Democratic. Some confusion will ensue, which should be constructive, as it will bring forth the arbitrary choice involved in the color assignment. It's easy to imagine protests arising, especially on the right, at what may be called a move by the liberal media to drain away the now widespread connotations of the colors.

If however the broadcasters instead continue the color scheme of 2000 and 2004, giving blue to the Democratic contender and red to the Republican stand-in for incumbency, they will implicitly endorsed the role the colors have come to play since 2000. The use of Red/Blue will have been confirmed as a psychological operation.

JackRiddler

[white_wolf]

61. Actually, the term orginated based on the seating of the French

National Convention during the Revolution. Oh and I much prefer this political compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-9.12&soc=-8.05

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Nope, it comes from France,

French National Assembly 1789. Nobles to the right, Third Estate to the left. The use of right and left in politics did not become common in the US or UK until early 1900's. It is about who sits where in a legislative body, just that it did not start with ours.

[G_j]

38. LOL

that graph is pretty funny..
it is a joke...isn't it?
:banghead:

[MineralMan]

41. Not really. It's pretty much a standard political bell curve

illustration. I admit that the "Crazy" part is a little over the top, but I just grabbed one from Google images. Looking at the recent elections the Democratic and Republican parties seem about equally divided. Democrats are on the left side of the diagram. Republicans are on the right side. That's also reflected in where they sit in Congress. Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right. Indeed, that is where the use of left and right for political positions originates.

So, no, it's not a joke.

If you have another definition, you're welcome to put it forward.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Compromise is good..up to a point.

There are jobs I won't do. Wages I wouldn't take. Deals I won't make. Principles I won't concede. Candidates I won't vote for. Compromises I won't support.

The two-party system is corrupt because they have an iron grip on the system and make it virtually impossible to challenge. It isn't that we compromise it's the two parties that "compromise". It would be all very well if the "compromises" were reached between a variety of parties instead of the two capitalist/nationalist parties. But, that is made impossible because the the 2 parties control the system.

So, we are faced with a bleak choice. Go along with a corrupt system because that's what's available. Or, choose not to.

Which is why I vote issues rather than candidates or party.

[MineralMan]

26. Unfortunately, half of the bulk of the voting population doesn't

agree with you. There's the problem. Over the entire country, elections turn on a few percentage points of the vote. Unless you can change that, the voters will see to it that we always stay just about in the middle. That's been the case for a long, long time now. That is the reality of American politics. If you want to change that, you will either have to:

1. Change the system completely. That's pretty difficult, since it's encoded in our Constitution.
2. Change the minds of more than half of the voting population. That's also very difficult.

If you have another method in mind, please tell me what it might be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. How does going along with the system change it?

What you seem to be championing is surrender. Well, everybody does it, so I'll do it too? Where do you draw the line on issues?

Abortion? Some restrictions on women's right to choose are better than a lot of restrictions?

War? Killing 100,000 people is better than killing 200,000?

Wages? $1 an hour is better than $.50 an hour?

Privacy? Giving the FBI free rein to tap phones is better than warrantless searches of houses?

Civil Rights? I'm straight so I can get married but gays can't?

The list goes on.

At some point it comes down to each individual to decide on the lines he/she will cross and vote/not vote accordingly.

[MineralMan]

29. As you say. The individual votes, based on his or her own lines.

However, the individual does not decide what will happen. Elections are a collective thing. The results are based on a majority or plurality of the votes of all the individuals who vote. Each has a line. Each decides how to vote. The final outcome is collective.

It that the best way to make such decisions for whole societies? I don't know, to tell you the truth. However, I know that it is the system used in this society.

Would I prefer a different system? I might, depending on what system you want to mention. Or I might not. I might also ask how you would change the system that is now in place. Clearly it will not be changed from within that system, so some other means would be necessary. What means did you have in mind? Whether I would agree with those means is another issue altogether. What do you do if a majority does not wish the system to be changed? That seems likely to me in the US.

You're making statements, but not supplying enough information. Sorry, but I can't comment on your plans without knowing what they might be.

[leftstreet]

35. No, individuals vote based on what the menu offers

If a restaurant only serves coffee or water, some will choose one or the other, and some will say no to both

[MineralMan]

37. I have not been in such a restaurant.

Every restaurant I know of has more choices than coffee and water.

In our elections, we also have more than two choices much of the time. The two main parties almost always prevail, despite the other choices. Occasionally, as with Grayson, a third party candidate wins.

[white_wolf]

46. Grayson was a Democrat, not third party.

[MineralMan]

50. Damn! I always confuse Grayson with Bernie Sanders.

I've got to get that fixed in my head. I meant to refer to Sanders. Sorry.

[white_wolf]

52. It is fine. I can see how you would get them confused

they are both great. Wish we had a few 100 more of each of them. I'm hoping Grayson makes a comeback next year.

[MineralMan]

54. I hope Grayson can come back, too.

I'm not sure why I get the two confused. I just made a mental note to myself not to use either name without double-checking.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. I stated my "plan".

But, John Quincy Adams said it better:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

I simply refuse to play along in a fixed game because it's the only game in town.

I'm of an age where just going along with evil is an option I can no longer accept. And, "working within the system" just hasn't worked. Which is why I choose to vote for or against issues like war, abortion rights, civil rights, labor rights, etc, as they arise and refuse to accept the "compromises" presented by parties who have vested interests in those "compromises". Particularly, when the compromises are made for purely political reasons to advance the ambitions of one or the other of the two parties we are stuck with.

IMO the parties have become too powerful and their greed for power has superseded whatever principles they occasionally claim. George Washington warned of this in his Farewell speech. As did Thomas Jefferson. In effect, the two parties now serve their own interests rather than the interests of the people.

[MineralMan]

47. Very well. It is your vote.

Use it as you see fit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. I will. And, I assume you will do likewise.

[MineralMan]

60. I always do. Always have.

I just do it differently.

[sabrina 1]

57. And that is because for far too long, people have gone along

with your compromise theory.

They've chosen the 'lesser of two evils' believing they have no choice, so the election results you point to, mean nothing other than 'there are only two bad choices'.

To change that, first look at the polls on every 'far' left issue, a MAJORITY of Americans agree when the issue is presented free of party affiliation.

So, you are wrong in your assumptions that the country is evenly divided.

What you meant to say is 'the country has been deliberately controlled by offering only two boxes into which people may cast their votes'.

If we had a strong Independent Party your entire theory would fall apart, especially if that party was a Workers Party, remember? What the Democratic Party used to be until it was infiltrated by DLCers, Reagan/Republicans/Democrats etc.

I can see a third party emerging. Most Americans are unhappy with the 'lesser of two evil' system they live under.

[MineralMan]

64. If a third party emerges, that's what happens.

Another choice for people to make. We've seen them before. We do have an Independent Party. Sadly, it is not the Worker's Party. We have a Green Party, that runs candidates in most major elections. We have other parties, as well. They don't do so well, really in most elections. Perhaps you can change that. I don't know.

[sabrina 1]

66. There have always been lots of parties.

People have been told that if they vote for anyone other than Repubs or Dems they will be 'throwing away their votes'.

This only proves my point that your concept of where the American actually stand on the issues, is wrong.

When people stop being afraid, things will change. I think we're getting there. Not necessarily with a third party, but with people no longer being talked into voting for rightwing 'Democrats' when there is a progressive democrat in the race. This is what happened over the past ten years. Fear was the reason, fear of Bush, fear of losing. Those elements don't exist anymore. Lots of people not willing to do that anymore which hopefully will lead to some changes for the better in this party.

[MineralMan]

69. Well, that'd be nice.

Good luck with that. I don't see it happening.

[sabrina 1]

74. I know you don't. A lot of people didn't see

the American Revolution happening either, but it did. Or Democrats losing last November, but some of us did, and they did.

It won't be luck that will start changing this party, it will be US and now it is a very good time to start the process.

[MineralMan]

76. As I said, good luck with that.

[johnaries]

28. Excellent post. Our Country was built on Compromise.

The fact that we have a bi-cameral legislature is the result of The Great Compromise. Thank the Universe/God/Goddess for that! The entire Constitution is the result of compromise.

Although we may respect people who don't compromise, the fact is that any kind of progress is impossible without it. We may not like the compromise, but without some kind of compromise we could not move forward at all.

[MineralMan]

34. Very well stated.

[sudopod]

31. No one dies when /you/ compromise. nt

[Enrique]

33. except the fish

:-)

[MineralMan]

36. Actually, not even the fish.

I'm completely a catch-and-release angler, as are my fishing companions. We do not even use live bait when fishing. All fish caught are safely released.

[white_wolf]

42. I'm not opposed to compromise in all things, it is just that the Dems compromise is terrible.

Take healthcare reform for instance. The Democrats should have started with Single-payer or Socialized Medicine and the compromise should have been the Public Option, that is a compromise I would have been okay with.

[MineralMan]

45. I don't disagree with you. I'm actually way over to the left in

my bell curve diagram, philosophically. Perhaps farther to the left than you would believe. However, I recognize that my positions are not feasible in this society at this particular time. It's frustrating, to be sure.

[white_wolf]

49. People say that a lot, and they may very well be right, but

I really would have thought the extremest views of the Tea-party would have not have been feasible. Is the country really that far to the Right, or they just better at organization?

[MineralMan]

53. There have been many temporary shifts, and sometimes

a group catches the public's attention and gains some power. I think the teabagger thing is self-limiting. 2012 should correct things back toward the center again. Think about the 1994 election. That was corrected soon afterward.

We have unusual swings in politics here from time to time. Generally, they last only a short time. Right now, the teabaggers are able to shift things, and they're going too far with it. They'll discover their error in 2012, I believe.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. How can I compromise with people whose outlook on taking care of the people of this country

are so diametrically to my own? How to you compromise with people who want the poorest and least protected members of our society to just die? How do you compromise with people who have ice in their veins?

[MineralMan]

62. By drawing lines you won't cross.

Just like President Obama just did. "That will not happen while I am President."

Everyone has lines they will not cross. Compromise does not mean crossing those lines.

[white_wolf]

63. That is pretty much where I stand.

[JackRiddler]

67. Platitudes are bad. (Really.) So are abstract generalizations.

This is not politics. Mostly it's parables and schtick from your personal life, some church-sermon wisdom about how it's nice to be nice. I'm glad you're nice. Your essay is far removed from the political realities of today, wherein "compromise" disguises capitulation to class war. There's already blood in the streets.

[MineralMan]

71. You think it's removed from the political realities of today?

Really. I give you 2010. I'm hoping we can turn that around in 2012. I see no change from the past in how we vote. 1994-1996. Same old crap.

[paulk]

70. that depends on how you go about it

compromise works best when the two parties meet in the middle.

otherwise it's not "compromise", it's "capitulation"...

[JanMichael]

77. I've never respected TINA.

She tends to get screwed over constantly, keeps going out with losers for losers sake, and never reaches her true and awesome goals.

Kind of like that guy Fabian who prays over time, time and time again, that his socially awesome goals will incrementally be achieved and that TINA will go out with him.

The goals are never achieved and TINA never goes out with Fabian.

And the shared awesome socially perfect goals are never met.

[grahamhgreen]

79. But to be compromised is completely different.

compromise

n 1: a middle way between two extremes

compromised

adj 1: to go against your ethics or morals.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. "Almost universally" brings to mind the Pinafore!

Captain.
Bad language or abuse,
I never, never use,
Whatever the emergency;
Though "bother it" I may
Occasionally say,
I never use a big, big D —
Chorus.
What, never?
Captain.
No, never!
Chorus.
What, never?
Captain.
Hardly ever!

Hardly ever!

[bvar22]

81. Oh, I see what your problem is.

You are confusing "Compromise" with "Capitulation".

You see, in a "compromise" BOTH sides get something of near equal value.

What The Democratic Party Leadership has done since 2006 (Majorities in Congress) can more correctly be called "capitulation".

For Example:
In HCR, after a year of negotiation, The Party leadership traded away the Center Piece of the reform (Public Option), and in return received a few token crumbs, like permission for PECs to BUY Health Insurance from a For Profit Corporation without any Price Controls.
THAT is NOT a "compromise".

I could go on (and on, and on) with more examples, but I'm sure you get the point.